Monthly Archives: January 2007

The Saban era has begun – that is to say, in Tuscaloosa. Evidently it’s been continuing all along in Baton Rouge, we just didn’t realize it. From the Monroe News Star comes this:

In addition to visiting Curtis star Joe McKnight, Alabama coach Nick Saban has created a stir while visiting LSU commitments Phelon Jones, a cornerback from McGill-Toolen High in Mobile, Ala., and Luther Davis, a defensive end from West Monroe.According to both prospects, Saban took credit for LSU’s recent success as he signed most of the players involved in the Tigers’ 22-4 run since he left.

It doesn’t sound like he made that strong an impression:

“Great guy, but he is a little bit overconfident,” Jones’ father Tony is quoted as saying at Tigerbait.com.

No hard feelings, though:

“I don’t think the LSU coaches are upset with Saban,” according to Mike Scarborough of Tigerbait.com. “It probably just makes them very motivated to out-recruit him. I think they also think it’s unbelievable some of the things he is saying about LSU.”

CFN has its Preseason Lookahead for the SEC out. Currently, Georgia is listed as the fourth best squad in the conference, a projection I can’t really quibble with right now.

What’s of interest is the list of biggest (player) losses each school is looking at on offense and defense. If you look, you’ll see huge talents like Russell, Leak, Nelson, Olajubutu, Irons, Meachum and Rice gone for next season.

Based on CFN’s list, Georgia’s losses in that light don’t look so daunting. Here’s who CFN says are the biggest:

Personally, I think Charles Johnson is a bigger loss than either Inman or Battle. Nonetheless, you can make a valid argument that several other conference rivals are taking much bigger hits in terms of their elite talent leaving than Georgia is for 2007.

I appreciate the originality of Dennis Dodd’s writing (check out the comments section in the linked article);

I really wanted to post this moronic quote from Jamie Newberg about the Zooker:

“The kids love him,” he said. “You go back and talk to the kids who just won at Florida, and there was a reason they went to Florida. The brunt of it was Zook. I would imagine he’s telling Illinois prospects the same thing — ‘Look at what we did at Florida, and we can do it at Illinois.’” [Emphasis added.]

Evidently for Buck Belue, recruiting is pretty simple: if you’re a legacy because your dad played football at the school, you should get offered a football scholarship by Mark Richt.

I don’t get the sense of entitlement here. And it’s not like Drew Butler is being handed a bunch of bad choices, either. He can take a full ride at Duke, or he can be a preferred walk on at Georgia – which would seem to be some indication that he is wanted, after all – and compete for a starting job and a scholarship.

Georgia has done quite well with this approach to kickers to date. Andy Bailey, who will probably not get the opportunity to kick a field goal again in college, is the only kicker during Richt’s tenure to be offered a scholly out of high school.

That means Bennett, Kilgo, Ely-Kelso and Coutu went down the same path being offered to Butler now. Does Buck really think anything separates this kid from these players other than his dad? And, if not, why is that enough to justify different treatment?

In a perverse way, I have to tip my cap to Heisman Pundit. He’s been taken to task in severalquarters for his insistence that Florida’s win in the BCS title game is a complete validation of his “Gang of Six” theory (which in essence boils down to offensive scheme matters more in college football than anything else), including this bludgeoning by Michael Elkon that is so devastating in its thoroughness that I was almost embarrassed for HP after I read it. Almost.

Perhaps a lesser man would have slunk away, changed the subject, something. Not HP, though, who’s back with another essay on the subject – “The Spread Spreads” – in which he continues to insist that the reason Florida’s point production in Meyer’s two years in the SEC has been middling is because Meyer has deliberately chosen to hold things back:

… If the spread works, why did it only score 21 points against SEC teams? Well, I think the answer is clear: it didn’t need to score more. How long should a man’s legs be? Answer: Long enough to touch the ground.

… Going into most conference games, Meyer knew that the other team couldn’t score against his defense, so why open things up? He played the percentages.

This all ties back in to HP’s overarching theory about the SEC being a conference (with a couple of exceptions in Meyer and Spurrier) full of offensive coordinators who believe the game should still be played with leather helmets.

But – thank God! – help is on the way for the millions of souls who despair over the current state of SEC football. According to HP, the SEC is going to have no choice but to play catch up with Meyer’s exotic spread offense. Fortunately, the process has already started at LSU, where “… the issue has apparently been settled in Les Miles’ mind.”

Never mind that LSU has outscored Florida’s offense (both in SEC and seasonal play) in the two years that Meyer has been the head coach. Or that LSU and Ohio State were both in the NCAA top 10 in scoring in 2006.

Never mind that in ’06, when Meyer had more of his players like Tebow and Harvin to run in his offense, Florida’s point production in the conference actually declined from its ’05 numbers.

Never mind that Meyer saw fit to score 42 and 62 points against the two non-conference teams on Florida’s ’06 schedule that the Gators shut out. So much for “playing the percentages”.

Never mind that HP doesn’t bother to explain why SEC coaches will respond to Meyer’s offense as he suggests, even though they apparently never responded like that to Spurrier’s introduction of the “Fun ‘n Gun” (which was an immediate scoring sensation, by the way) to the SEC seventeen years ago.

I was going to write something about this lazy, stupid piece Rod Gilmore contributed to ESPN’s five part series about making changes to college football (what do you want to bet that none of the articles in the series have anything to do with ESPN?), but Realist does such a complete dismantling of it that I can save my breath.

However with his installment today, Ivan Maisel completely redeems the World Wide Leader (for one day, anyway) with his thoughts on changing the BCS.

… It takes patience to let the season happen. That’s a hard lesson to learn, especially for writers like yours truly who delight in training a spotlight on the imperfections of the system. But the high wattage blinds us to the charm and tension of the regular season. The drama that attended Michigan’s visit to Ohio Stadium in mid-November would have evaporated if college football had a playoff. The game would have produced all the tension and significance of a Big Ten Basketball Tournament championship. That’s the game played on Selection Sunday, and I defy anyone without a blood relative playing for the winner to name the team that won last year’s tournament.

(Iowa, according to Wikipedia.)

With a playoff, UCLA’s dramatic upset of USC would have cost the Trojans a few places in the seeding and nothing more. Ask the Bruins how meaningful that would have been, and whether they would trade it for the mean-spirited delight of denying their biggest rival a chance to play for the national championship.

The thought of a playoff is intoxicating. But the reality of what college football now enjoys is just as powerful. College football fans merely take it for granted.

The entire article is like that – beautiful.

Good on ‘ya, Mr. Maisel. I doubt it’s what your corporate masters were expecting from you, but that makes it even more of a joy to read.